DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/26 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (USPAP 2007/0147055) in view of Otsuka (USPAP 2025/0214505) and further in view of Tanaka et al (USPAP 2016/0185276).
As to claim 1, Komatsu discloses, in figures 6, 10(a) and 10(b),
a vehicle lamp system (the vehicle lamp system shown in figure 6 of Komatsu) capable of emitting irradiation light having variable light distribution toward the front of a vehicle (vehicle 60 shown in figure 10(a) of Komatsu), the system comprising:
a first lamp (the left headlamp of vehicle 60 shown in figure 10(a) of Komatsu) disposed opposing an oncoming lane side of the front of the vehicle and a second lamp (the right headlamp of vehicle 60 shown in figure 10(a) of Komatsu) disposed on the oncoming lane side of the front of the vehicle,
a control unit (control unit 33 shown in figure 6 of Komatsu),
wherein the control unit, when the location where the vehicle is present is undergoing inclement weather (when vehicle 60 shown in Komatsu’s figure 10(a) is undergoing inclement weather, e.g., rain, snow, sleet, fog, etc),
with regard to an area above a horizon line (the area above the horizon line shown in figure 10(b) of Komatsu, i.e., the horizontal line shown in this figure above light irradiation area P(L)) in a front in view from the vehicle,
within the irradiation range of the first lamp (within the irradiation range of the above-noted first lamp of vehicle 60),
the control unit sets a first light irradiation range to the range from the forward center of the vehicle to the range opposite to the oncoming lane (control unit 33 sets a first light irradiation range to the range from the forward center of the vehicle 60 to the range opposite to the oncoming lane, i.e., the light irradiation area 63 generated by the above-noted first lamp together with the light irradiation area 67 generated by the high beam of the first lamp of vehicle 60 in figure 10(a) of Komatsu), and
within the irradiation range of the second lamp (within the irradiation range of the above-noted second lamp of vehicle 60), and
the control unit sets a dimmed range or non-illuminated range (note that the low beam range 63 shown in figure 10(a) of Komatsu has a dimmed range or non-illuminated range corresponding to the right side of vehicle 60, i.e., the illumination range is reduced on the right side of vehicle 60 corresponding to the oncoming lane side thereof).
Not disclosed by Komatsu is that the above-noted control unit 33 includes a memory and processor, as recited on lines 5-8 of claim 1.
Otsuka discloses, in the same field of endeavor as Komatsu, a vehicle lamp system capable of emitting irradiation light having variable light distribution toward the front of a vehicle, wherein the system includes a control unit 30 for controlling the light distribution toward the front of a vehicle including headlamp units 11 and 21 (see paragraphs [0032] through [0033] of Otsuka) wherein the control unit 30 includes a processor and memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a program and the processor is connected to the memory and configured to execute the program read from the memory, wherein the processor outputs a control signal to the first and second headlamp units 11 and 21 upon execution of the program (see paragraph [0035] of Otsuka).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the above-noted teachings by Komatsu and Otsuka such that Komatsu’s control unit 33 includes a memory and processor as taught by Otsuka in paragraph [0035], the reason being that Komatsu only discloses a generic control unit 33 without disclosing the specific details thereof, and Otsuka discloses the specific details of a control unit, i.e., control unit 30, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the specific details of Otsuka’s control unit 30 could obviously be used to implement the generic control unit 33 disclosed by Komatsu. The motivation for forming the control unit 33 of Komatsu using a memory and processor, as taught by Otsuka, is to obtain the well-known benefits associated with a memory which stores a program and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute a program read from the memory, i.e., extremely fast processing, multitasking ability, etc).
Also not disclosed by Komatsu are the limitations recited on lines 17-22 of claim 1, i.e., the processor generating the control signal which controls Komatsu’s first and second lamps based on input from at least one weather device based on data regarding the inclement weather, that instructs the irradiation of the light distribution pattern that has been set and outputs the control signal to the first and second lamps, and wherein irradiation of the light distribution pattern is performed by the first and second lamps in response to the control signal.
Tanaka et al discloses, in the same field of endeavor as Komatsu, a vehicle lamp system capable of emitting irradiation light having variable light distribution, wherein the system comprises a control unit which generates a control signal based on input from at least one weather device based on data regarding the inclement weather, that instructs the irradiation of the light distribution pattern that has been set and outputs the control signal to the first and second lamps, wherein irradiation of the light distribution pattern is performed by the first and second lamps in response to the control signal (see figures 9(A) through 9(C) and paragraph [0039] of Tanaka et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the above-noted teachings by Komatsu, Otsuka and Tanaka et al such that the processor in Komatsu generates the control signal received by Komatsu’s first and second lamps based on input from at least one weather device based on data regarding the inclement weather, that instructs the irradiation of the light distribution pattern that has been set and outputs the control signal to the first and second lamps, wherein irradiation of the light distribution pattern is performed by the first and second lamps in response to the control signal, as taught by Tanaka et al. The motivation for such a combination is to be able to adjust Komatsu’s light irradiation patterns during inclement weather conditions in order to improve the driver’s visibility during adverse weather conditions.
As to the new limitations added to claim 1, i.e., the limitations recited on lines 23-47 thereof, these limitations do not distinguish patentably over Komatsu as modified above using the teachings of Otsuka and Tanaka et al, the reason being that all of these functional limitations will be inherent during the operation of the Komatsu vehicle lamp system in either inclement or non-inclement weather conditions, i.e., in Komatsu as modified above using the teachings of Otsuka and Tanaka et al, when the weather condition is non-inclement, Komatsu’s vehicle lamp system will provide the (a) through (d) limitations recited on lines 26-37 of claim 1, and when the weather condition is inclement weather, Komatsu’s vehicle lamp system will provide the (e) and (f) limitations recited on lines 40-47 of claim 1. As to the recitation on the last three lines of claim 1, i.e., the resulting irradiation generates a lesser light curtain phenomenon compared to a configuration in which a dimming range or a non-irradiation range is not set, this recitation is just a statement of the inherent result which will occur during the operation of applicant’s vehicle lamp system and such will also inherently occur during the operation of Komatsu’s vehicle lamp system as modified above using the teachings of Otsuka and Tanaka et al. Applicant should note, however, that Tanaka et al does in fact indicate that the light irradiation having variable light distribution will generate a lesser light curtain phenomenon compared to a configuration in which a dimming range or a non-irradiation range is not set, i.e., note what is indicated in paragraph [0039] of this reference. Moreover, it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971)).
As to claim 2, note that in Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, Komatsu’s control unit 33, which obviously could be a processor as indicated above, generates a control signal which controls Komatsu’s first and second lamps such that the first light irradiation range is directed toward the outside of the lane (note light irradiation area 67 shown in Komatsu’s figure 10(a)) in which vehicle 60 is traveling, on the opposite side from the oncoming lane.
As to claim 3, note that in Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, the irradiation light is emitted by both the first and second lamps below the H-line, i.e., the horizontal line shown in figure 10(b) of Komatsu.
As to claim 4, note that in Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, Komatsu’s control unit 33, which obviously could be a processor as indicated above, detects a preceding vehicle in front of the vehicle (note paragraph [0060] of Komatsu which discloses that the control unit 33 detects the distance between vehicle 60 and a preceding vehicle, i.e., vehicle 69 shown in Komatsu’s figure 12(a), and in Komatsu’s vehicle lamp system, when the distance is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, control unit 33 will generate the control signal that instructs the irradiation of the light distribution pattern to be output by Komatsu’s first and second lamps.
As to claim 5, note that in Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, the functional limitations recited in this claim will also occur during operation of Komatsu’s vehicle lamp system, i.e., when the location where the vehicle is present is undergoing inclement weather, with regard to the area above the horizon line, where the irradiation light has of the variable light distribution in which a range that is directed toward a roadside of an oncoming vehicle lane of the vehicle, i.e., the light irradiated by Komatsu’s right headlamp, control unit 33 will generate and output the control signal that instructs the irradiation of the light distribution pattern output by the right headlamp.
As to claim 6, note that in Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, the second light irradiation range, i.e., the light output from the above-noted right headlamp of vehicle 60 shown in figure 10(a) of Komatsu, will expand upward as the vehicle 60 approaches the roadside of the oncoming vehicle lane.
As to claim 7, the specific light irradiation range recited in this claim also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claims 9 and 10, note paragraph [0039] of Tanaka et al which indicates that the inclement weather includes rain, snowfall, or fog, and the at least one weather device includes a raindrop sensor, an operation signal of a wiper switch, an operation signal of a manual switch, or a signal based on weather information obtained via communication, and detects inclement weather based on one or more of these signals.
As to claims 11 and 12, note that all of the functional limitations recited in these two claims will also occur during the operation of the vehicle lamp system of Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, and the limitations recited on the last five lines of claim 12 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, again because it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claims 13-20, all of the limitations of these claims similarly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Komatsu as modified by Otsuka and Tanaka et al above, using the same reasoning and analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-12.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 October 13, 2026
